Dismissed

Smt. G.Sarojini v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Aug 2012CRA/72/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal against conviction for possession of ganja. It held that Section 42 of the NDPS Act was substantially complied with despite a 1.5-day delay, Section 50 did not apply to house searches, and a 2-day delay in sending samples was not fatal as seals remained intact and inc evidence was reliable. The appeal failed and was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed, original conviction and sentence confirmed.

Smt. G.Sarojini Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Landlord and Tenant | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

! ‘ Sini’g?g Wmk i

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR

¶4

CHHATTISGARH QRIMINAL APPEAL NO. G? l [2006 A

¶5

APPELLANT : Smt. G. Sarojini a^‘ IN JAIL W/ 9:}Chhemaiya Telgu, Aged about 5O years, ‘ Occupation House wife, R/o Ganesh Mandir, Balaji Nagar, Khursipar, P.S. Chhaoni, Distt. Durg (C.G.)

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

RESPONDENT : The State of Chhattisgarh Through: P.S. Chhawani, Distt. Durg (C.G.) / Special Case No. ‘16/05 /' U/s 20( (11)(C)^{of TheNarcotlcDrugsand} Psychotroplc Substances Act 1985

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 l2l OF THE CODE OF t

¶9

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

¶10

I a " v: " x

¶11

¶12

HIGH COURT OF^{CHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR}

¶13

D.B.: Hon’ble Shri^{JusticeSunilKumarSinhaand} Hon’ble Shri Justice^{RadheShyamSharma}

¶14

Criminal Appeal No.72^of2006

¶15

Appeiiant

¶16

Respondent

¶17

G. Sarojani,'wife^{ofG.Simmaiya,} aged about 50 years,^occupation housewife, resident of Ganesh Temple, Balaji Nagar, Khursipar, Police Station Chhawani, District n Durg (Chhattisgarh) versus

¶18

State of Chhattisgarh

¶19

Present: .. Smt. Kiran Jain, counsel^{fortheappellant.} Smt. Madhunisha‘Singh,^{PanelLawyerfortheState/respondent.}

¶20

Criminal Appeal^{underSection374(2)oftheCodeofCriminal} Procedure

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

(Delivered^on1% 2012)

¶23

Per Radhe Shyam^Sharma,J.:

¶24

This appeal is directed against judgment^dated 26-12-2005 passed^{bySpecialJudgeundertheNarcoticDrugsandPsychotropic} V Substances^Act, 1985 (henceforth ‘the Act, 1985’), Durg in Special C ase No.16/2005.^{Bytheimpugned} jugment,d^{accused/appellantG.} Sarojani has been convicted under^{Section2(bii)(C)} 0)( of the Act, 1985 and^{sentencedtoundergorigorousimprisonmnt} e^for 1 2 years and to pay^fine of Rs.1,50,000/—, in default of payment^offine, to further undergo^{rigorousimprisonmentfor3} years.

¶25

¶26

posted^{asAssistantSub-lnspectorinthesaidpolicechowki.} On that day, they were depioyed in law and order duty near Municipai Corporation Office,^Khursipar. l.R.Sahu (PW-7) received^information that appellant G. Sarojani^{andoneA.NainammaweresellingGanja} iiiegally. l.R.Sahu (PW-7) prepared^{MukhbirSuchanavideEx.P-9.} It was communicated to superior officer, City Superintendent of Police, Chhawani through Constabie Jitendra Shukla (PW—3). Thereafter, they proceeded to the house of A. Nainamma, where l.R.§ahu (PW—7) instructed M.L.Shukla (PW-10)^to go^andsearch appeilant G. sarojani as she^washaving Ganja in her possession iiiegally. M.L.Shukla (PW-10) proceeded for the house of the appeilant, situated at Balaji Nagar, along with Head Constable Manharan Singh (PW—2), Constable Dilip and other witnesses. When they reached^{tothehouseoftheappellant;shewas} present there. She was informed^{aboutthesearchofhousevideEx.P—14.} Her consent regarding search was recorded in Ex.P-14 itself. Thereafter, M.L.Shukla (PW-10)^searched her house. Ganja was found in her house kept in 3 jute-bags. Identification of the recovered article was conducted. After physical^{verification,} it was found that the recovered^{articlewasGanja.} Ganja was weighed^on the spot. It was found that^{outofthethree} jute-bags,^one jute-bag had contained 15 kilograms, second one had contained 18 kilograms and third one had contained 20 kilograms of Ganja. Weight Panchnama^was prepared^vide Ex.P-3. Ganja was seized vide Ex.P-7. Samples of the seized Ganja Were prepared separately. Thereafter, M.L.Shukla (PW-10)^{recordedDehatiNalishi} (EXP-15)^{andarrestedtheappellantvideEx.P-8.} M.L.Shukla (PW-

¶27

¶28

¶29

came back to Police Chowki, Khursipar and registered First Information Report. Action Taken Report was sent to CSP, Chhawani, Bhilai vide^Ex.P—16. The seized Ganja^and its sampies were kept^inMalkhana. The samples^{oftheseizedGanjaweresent} to Forensic^{ScienceLaboratory,RaipurvideEx.P—1.} Report (EX.P17) was received therefrom, in which, test of Ganja was found positive.

¶30

x r After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet^wasfiled against^theappellant in the Court^{ofSpecialJudgeundertheAct,} 1985, Durg,^{whoconductedthe} trial and^{convictedandsentenced} «S , . the appellant^{as-mentionedabove.}

¶31

Smt. Kiran^{Jain,learned‘counselfortheappellantarguedthat} there was^{non-complianceof} provisions^{ofSections42,50and55of} , j the Act, 1985. Ganja was^{notsealedbytheStationHouseOfficer*} before handing it over to Malkhana. The samples^were sent to Forensic^{ScienceLaboratorybelatedly.} There was^{noexplanation} therefor. Therefore, there^is possibility^{oftamperingofthesamples.} The Investigating Officer did not prepare Seal Panchnama and specimen of seal^{wasnotaffixedontheseizurememoandother} requisite^documents. Information^{underSection57oftheAct,1985} was also sent^belatedly. Hence, the^{appellantdeservesacquittal.} 4. Smt. Madhunisha Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent,^{supportingtheimpugnedjudgment,submittedthat} the conviction^{andsentenceawardedbythelearnedSpecialJudge} Mdo^{notwarrantanyinterferencebythisCourt.}

¶32

¶33

We have heard Iearned^{counselforthe} pafties^atIengthand have perused the^{recordofSpecialCaseNo.16/2005.,}

¶34

The prosecution examined^{ConstableGhanshyamPatel} (PW1), Head Constable Manharan Singh (PW-2), Constable Jitendra Shukla (PW—3), Ramdawan (PW-4),^RameshKumar (PW-5),^Head Constable Kunwar^SinghSahu (PW—6),^{Chowki-in-Ch‘argel.R.Sahu} (PW-7), Head Constable Shivnandan Sahu (PW-8), Patwari S.L.Manjhi (PW-9), AssistantSub-Inspector M.L.Shukla (PW—10) .g s andx Chandrarna^Mallah (PW-1^1). The appellant examined^Assistant Sub-inspector^Manoj Dahariya (DW-1), Rajeshwaribai (DW—2)^and G. Dhannu (DW~3).

¶35

Now, we shall examine^whether provision^{ofSection42ofthe} Act, 1985 has been^{substantiallycompliedwithornot?}

¶36

l.R.Sahu (PW—7)^deposed that he was Chowki-in—Charge of Police Chowki Khursipar. On 31-3—2005, he was deployed in law and order duty near^Municipal Corporation Office, Khursipar. He received secret information that the appellant had Ganja in her possession. He prepared Mukhbir^{Suchanaandcommunicated} it to CSP, Chhawani through Constable Jitendra Shukla (PW-3). M.L.Shukla (PW-10)^deposed that on 31-3-2005, at about 6-6:15 A.M., along^withl.R.Sahu (PW-7),^{hewasdeployedinlawandorder} duty near^{MunicipalCorporationOffice,Khursipar.} l.R.Sahu (PW-7) told him that^theyhadto go^{toseizeGanja.}

¶37

Jitendra Shukla (PW-3)^deposed that on 31—3-2005, he was posted^{asConstableatPoliceChowki} Khursipar. On that day,^he

¶38

¶39

¶40

was on patrolling duty along with Chowki-in-C‘harge. He was handed over^{MukhbirSuchanato} give^{ittoCSP,Chhawani.} He had gone^{totheofficeofCSP,ChhawaniandhandedovertheMukhbir} Suchana there. Head Constable Kunwar Singh Sahu (PW-6) deposed that^{on31-3-2005,hewas} posted^{asReaderintheofficeof} CSP, Chhawani. On that day, he^had received Mukhbir^Suchana (Ex.P-9C)^{fromPoliceChowkiKhursipar.} He had acknowledged^the same in EXP-90 itself. The ori‘g'inal^{MukhbirSuchanaisinCriminal} Case. No.385/2005.

¶41

Karn'ail Singh^{vs.StateofHaryana,} (2009)^8SCC539, win the Hon’ble^{SupremeCourtheldthus:}

¶42

“35. In conclusion, what is to be noticed is that Abdul Rashid Ibrahim^{Mansuriv.StateofGujarat,} (2000)^2SCC 513, did not require literal compliance with the requirements^{ofSections42(1)and42(2)nordidSajan} Abraham^{v.StateofKerala,} (2001)^{6SCC692,holdthat} the requirements^{ofSections42(1)and42(2)neednotbe} fulfilled at all. The effect of the two decisions was^as follows:

¶43

(a) The omcer on receiving the information [of the nature referred to in sub—section. (1) of Section 42]^fromany person^hadtorecord it in writing in the register concerned and forthwith send a copy to his immediate official superior, before proceeding to take action in terms of clauses (a) to (d) of Section 42(1 ).

¶44

(b) But if the information^{wasreceivedwhenthe} officer was not^inthe police^{station,butwhile} he was on the^moveeitheron patrol^dutyor

¶45

¶46

¶47

or other otherwise, either by mobile phdne, means, and the information calis for immediate^{actionandanydelaywouldhave} resulted in the goods or evidence being removed or destroyed, it would not be feasible or practical to take down in writing the information given to him, in such a situation, he^{couldtakeactionas} per^clauses (a)^to (d)^{ofSection42(1)andthereafter,as} soon as it is. practical,^{recordtheinformation} in writing^{andforthwithinformationthesame} to the official^superior.

¶48

w, I

¶49

(d)

¶50

In other words, the compliance with the requirements^{ofSections42(1)and42(2)} in regard to writing down the information received^{andsendingaCopythereoftothe} superior officer,^{shouldnormally} precede^the entry, search^{andseizurebytheofficer,But} in special^{circumstancesinvolvingemergent} situations,^{therecordingoftheinformationin} writing and sending a copy thereof to the official superior may get postponed by a reasonable period, that is, after the^search, entry and seizure. The question is one of urgency and^expediency. While total non-compliance with requirements o sub-sections (1)^and (2) of Section 42 is impermissible, delayed ' compliance with satisfactory explanation about the delay will be acceptable compliance^{withSection42.} To illustrate, if any delay may result in the accused escaping or the goods or evidence being destroyed or removed, not recording int writing the information received, before

" : \

initiating action, or non-sending’of^acopyof such information to the officiai superior forthwith, may^{notbetreatedas} violation of Section 42. But if the information was received when^the police officer was in the police station with sufficient time to take action, and if the police officer^{failstorecord} in writing the^{informationreceived,orfailsto} send a copy^thereof, to the official superior, ‘be then it will a suspicious circumstance being a clear violation of Section⁴² of the Act. Similarly,^wherethe police^officerdoes not record the information at all, and does not inform the official superior at all, then ‘ also it will be a clear^{violationofSection42} of the Act. Whether there is adequate or substantial^{compliancewithSection42ornot} is a question of fact to be decided in each case. The above. position got^strengthened with the amendment^{toSection42byAct9} of 2001."

¶55

Looking to the evidence of M.L.Shukla (PW-10), Jitendra Shukla (PW-3),^{KunwarSinghSahu(PW-6)andEx.P-9C,} it appears that l.R.Sahu (PW—7)^{receivedthesecretinformation,} recorded the same vide^{Ex.P-QCandcommunicated} it to CSP,^Chhawani. it is, therefore,^clearthat provisions^{ofSection42oftheAct,} 1985 were complied^with.

¶56

Now, we^{shallconsidertheargumentregardingSection50of} the Act,^1985.

¶57

M.L.Shukla (PW-10)^{deposedthathehadgivennoticetothe} appellant for search of her house vide Ex.P—14. The appellant

¶58

¶59

¶60

consented for the search. The consent of the appellant was recorded in Ex.P-14 itself. On making search of the house of^the appellant, Ganja was found in her possession. The same was seized before^witnesses. In Ex.P—14, it is mentioned^that—

¶61

“aewmiaehs‘iemnamnaagemwn’wfw mswwmwsmsmmwa WWWswmmwsgmmiiWWwf sleazwshawwwsgaemwahmam %|Erafarmsrqamaé‘raawhgsmms§m§?”‘

¶62

Thisghpws that^{asearchofhousewastobemadeand} it was not an instance of personal^search.

¶63

r. , .

¶64

In Madanlaf and^anothervs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2003)^{7scc465andMeghSinghvs.Stat‘eofPunjab,(2003)8} SCC 666, the^{Hon’bleSupremeCourtobservedthatabarereading} of Section 50 of^{theAct,1985showsthat} it only applies in^caseof personal search of a person. It does not extend to search of a vehicle or a container or'a bag or premises. The language of Section 5O is^{implicitlyclearthatthesearchhastobeinrelationtoa} ’person as contrasted to^searchof premises,^{vehicleorarticles.} The was settled beyond doubt by the Constitution Bench in position State of Punjab^{vs.BaldevSingh,} (1^999)6SCC172.

¶65

In view of the^{abovesettledlegal} position, Section 50 of^the Act, 1985 would^{notbeapplicablewhenSearch} is made in a house or a vehicle or^{acontainerorabagor} premises. In the instant^case, the search was made of the house of the appellant, therefore, Section 50 of^{theAct,1985wasnotapplicable.}

¶66

¶67

¶68

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that evidence of M.L.Shukla (PW—10) is not supported by the evidence of independent witnesses. Therefore, conviction of the appellant cannot be based^{ontheevidenceofM.L.Shukla} (PW—10)^{andothe r} police^witnesses.

¶69

In Girja Prasad (Dead)^{byLRs.vs.StateofM.P.,} (2007)⁷ SCC 625, the Hon’ble^{SupremeCourtobservedthus:}

¶70

4;?5. ln our judgment, the^above proposition^doesnotlay down correct law on the point. lt is well settled that credibility .of^{witnesshastobetestedonthetouchstone} of truthfulness^{andtrustworthiness.} It is quite possible that in a given case, a court of law may not base conviction^{solelyontheevidenceofthe‘complainantora} police official but it is not the law that police^witnesses should not be relied upon and their evidence^cannotbe accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. The presumption that every person acts^{honestlyappliesasmuchinfavourofa} police^{officialasanyotherperson.} No infirmity attaches to the testimony^of poliCe ofhcials merely^becausethey belong to police^force. There is no rule^{oflawwhichlays} down that no conviction^{canberecordedonthetestimony} of police ofhcials even if such evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy. The rule of prudence may require more^{carefulscrutinyoftheirevidence.} But, if the court is convinced^{thatwhatwasstatedbyawitnesshas} a ring of truth,^{convictioncanbebasedonsuchevidence.}

¶71

lt is not necessary^{torefertovariousdecisionson} We may, however,^{statethatbeforemorethan} the point. half a century,^{inAherRajaKhimav.StateofSaurashtra,} AIR 1956 SC 217,^{VenkataramaAyyar,J.stated:} (AIR^p. 230, para 40)

“40.

“40. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police officer^as of other persons, and it is not a judicial approach to distrust and suspect him Without good grounds therefor. Such an attitude could do neither credit to the magistracy nor good to the public. It can only run down the prestige of the police administration.”

¶76

In Tahirv. State (Delhi), (1996) 3 SCC 338,^dealing with a similar question, Dr. A.S. Anand, J. (as His Lordship then was) stated:'(SCC p. 341, para⁶⁾ t * “6. Where the evidence of the police officials, after car'eful scrutiny, inspires conhdence^and is found to be trustWorthy and reliable, it can form the basis of conviction and the absence of some^{independentwitness} of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence, does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution^case.”

¶77

In the instant case, Ramdawan (PW-4) ,^who is witness of Weight Panchnama (EXP—3), Ramesh Kumar (PW—5) and Chandrama Mallah (PW-11) did not support the case of the prosecution. Ramesh Kumar (PW-5) and^{ChandramaMallah} (PW11) turned hostile. But, they admitted their signatures in Ex.P—4 to P—8.

¶78

M.L.Shukla (PW-10) deposed^{thatGanjawasrecoveredfrom} the store-room of the house^{oftheappellant.} Recovered Ganja was kept in 3 jute—bags. Identification of the recovered article was conducted and Identification Panchnama (EXP—6) was prepared. Ganja was weighed on the^{spotbyRamdawan} (PW-4). At that time, Ramesh Kumar (PW-5) and Chandrama Mallah (PW-11) were

¶79

¶80

¶81

present^there. On weighing, it was found that out of the three jutebags, one jute-bag had contained 15 kilograms, second one had contained 18 kilograms^{andthirdonehadcontained20kilogramsof} Ganja. 2 samples of 25 grams of Ganja were prepared^fromthe each jute—bag, i.e., in total, 6 sampies were prepared^onthespot and sealed. Ganja was seized vide EXP-7.

¶82

Manharan Singh (PW-2)‘deposed that he had gone to the house of the appeliant along with M.L.Shukla (PW-10) and^Ganja wag recovered^{fromthehouseoftheappellantin3} jute-bags. On weighing, it was found that out^ofthethree jute-bags,^one jute-bag § n had contained 7‘15 kilograms, second one had contained 18 kilograms and third one had contained²⁰ kilograms of Ganja. In cross-examination, he specifically deposed^{thatatabout6-7A.M.,} he was on patrolling duty. At that time, he was^{askedtocometo} Balaji Nagar. He had called weighing person^at11:45A.M. In the Weight Panchnama (EXP-3), the time of weight is mentioned as 11:45 A.M.

¶83

M.L.Shukla (PW—10) substantially complied with provision of Section 42 of the Act, 1985 and his evidence is corroborated by Manharan Singh (PW—2). His evidence appears to be reliable. Nothing adverse^{couldbebroughtonrecordagainsthistestimony.} Therefore, we rely on his evidence without corroboration by the evidence of Panch^Witnesses. His evidence inspires^confidence.

¶84

Now, we shall examine the^{argumentregarding} Sections 55 and 57 of the Act,^1985.

¶85

¶86

M.L.Shukla (PW—10) deposed^{thatGanjawasrecoveredfrom} the store-room of the^{houseoftheappellant.} Recovered Ganja was kept in 3 jute-bags. Identification of the recovered article was conducted and Identification Panchnama (EXP-6) was prepared. Ganja was weighed^{onthespotbyRamdawan} (PW-4). At that time, Ramesh Kumar (PW-5) and Chandrama Mallah (PW-11) were present^there. On weighing, it was found that out of^thethree jutebags, one jute—bag had contained 15 kilograms, second one had contained 18^{kilogramsandthirdonehadcontained20kilogramsof} Ganja. 2 samples of 25 grams of^Ganjawere prepared^fromthe each jute-bag, i.e.,' in total, 6 samples^were prepared^onthespot and sealed. Ganja was seized^{videEx.P—7.} He further deposed^that he arrested the^{appellantvideEx.P-8andrecordedDehatiNalishi} vide Ex.P-15. He took the appellant along with'Ganja to Police Chowki Khursipar and registered regular FIR. Entry thereof is in Rojnamcha Sanha No.1694. He sent the detailed action taken report to CSP, Chhawani vide EXP-16. He handed over the property^{toMalkhanaMoharrir forsafecustody.}

¶87

EXP—16 is a memo (action taken report) sent to CSP, Chhawani by M.L.Shukla (PW-10). Acknowledgment thereof^isdone in EXP-16 itself. 25. Shivnandan Sahu (PW-8) deposed that he was posted as Head Constable at Police Chowki Khursipar, Police Station Chhawani. He had brought original Rojnamcha San/7a while his deposition. In Rojnamcha Sanha^{No.1694,entryregardingreturnof} M.L.Shukla (PW-10)^isrecorded. He further deposed^{thaton31-3—}

¶88

¶89

¶90

2005, he received the property^{fromM.L.Shukla} (PW-10)^forkeeping in Malkhana. Entry thereof was made^{inMalkhanaRegisteratSerial} No.58, which is Ex.P—11 and photo copy thereof^{isEx.P—11C.} He further deposed that the property^was sent to Malkhana, Police Station Chhawani^{forsafecustody.} The same is also recorded in Malkhana Register. Photo copy thereof^isEXP—12C.

¶91

Looking to the evidence of M.L.Shukla (PW-10) and Shivnandan^Sahu (PW-8), it is clear that the seized^Ganjaand its sanfl'ples were handed over by M.L.Shukla (PW-10) to Malkhana Moharrir for their safe custody and the same is corroborated by EX.P-1 1 C and^P—12C. 27. M.L.Shukla (PW-10)^deposed that he prepared the samples and sealed the^{seizedGanjaandthesamplesonthespot.} He sent the samples to^{FSL,RaipurvideEx.P-1,whose'acknowledgmentis} Ex.P-2. FSL Report is Ex.P-17. Ghanshyam Patel (PW—1)^deposed that he was posted^{asConstableatPoliceChowkiKhursipar.} On 2- 4—2005, he took the^{samplesregardingCrimeNo.386/2005ofPolice} Station Chhawani to FSL, Raipur for chemical examination and delivered the same at FSL, Raipur. Acknowledgment thereof is Ex.P-2. ln Ex.P-2, it is mentioned that^{anarticlewasreceivedfrom} Constable No.679^{GhanshyamPatel} (PW-1)^on2-4-2005. Ex.P-17 is the FSL Report. In EXP-17, it is mentioned that^an article was Police received from Ghanshyam Patel (PW-1), Constable^No.679, Station Chhawani, District Durg in sealed^{conditionon2-4—2005.} In Ex.P-17, it is mentioned as follows:

¶92

¶93

“m mm € H‘H‘ma W3 ah §$€ 3mm a7. 679mwm§mwmmw¥W2/4/osa% mg§a1q,é1ammi?i§1%awmwam$qwu1§n€ W,wwéld’t.d1.w.wm¢hS.J./C.G.P.$wmtn§ 113‘ l” 28. It appears that Ganja was^{seizedandsampiesthereofwere} prepared^{on31—3-2005,thesamplesweresenttoFSL,Raipuron2—} 4-2005 and the same were regeived in FSL, Raipur on 2-4-2005 itself.

¶94

"JL‘;

¶95

in Jarnail Singh vs.^{StateofPunjab,AIR2011SC964,the} Hon’bf‘e Supreme Court^{observedasfollows:}

¶96

“14. The trial court as well^astheHigh Court, on examination of the entire material, concluded that there was sufficient independent evidence produced by the prosecution regarding the completion of link evidence. Therefore, the delay in sending^thesample parcel^tothe office of Chemical Examiner pales into insignificance. We are of ,the considered opinion that mere delay in sending the sample of the narcotic to the office of the Chemical Examiner would not be sufficient to conclude that the sample has been tampered with. There is sufficient evidence to^{indicatethatthedelay,} if any, was wholly unintentional. This Court had occasion to deal with a similar issue, in the case of Balbir Kaur^v.Stateof Punjab, (2009) 15 SCC 795. The Court made the following observations:

¶97

“As far as delay in. sending the samples is concerned, we find the^{saidcontentionuntenableinlaw.} Reference in this^{regardmaybemadetothedecisionof} this Court in Hardip^Singhcase (AIR^2009SC432 .' 2008 AIR SCW 7514) wherein there was a gap of 40 days

¶98

¶99

between seizure^{andsendingthesampletothechemical} examiner. Despite the said fact the Court held^thatin view of cogent^{evidencethatopiumwasseizedfromthe} appellant^andtheseals put^{onthesamplewereintacttill} it was handed^{overtothechemicalexaminer,delayitself} is not fatal^tothe prosecution^case.”

¶100

¶101

Therefore,^{delayofmere2,daysinsendingthesamplestothe} offlce of^{ChemicalExaminerwould} not be^fatal to the case^ofthe a. a - prosecution.

¶102

‘ighe defence has not been able to prove that the seal put on the seized article and^{thesampleswas,} in any manner,^tampered with before^{thesampleswereexaminedbytheChemicalExaminer.} There was^{merelyadelayofabout2daysinsendingthesamplesto} I FSL, Raipur. It is not proved^{astohowtheaforesaiddelayof2days} it could^notbe proved^thatthe affected^{thesaidexaminationwhen} seal of the samples^was, in any^manner, tampered with. ln the circumstance, when the seal was found intact at the time of examination by the Chemical Examiner and the said fact was recorded^byhim in his report,^{meretheabovedelayinsendingthe} samples^{totheChemicalExaminer} itself would not be^fatal to the prosecution. 32. Ganja was^{seizedfromtheappellantandthesampleswere} sent to the^Chemical Examiner in a properly^sealed condition^and The appellant^couldnot the test^{thereofwasfoundtobepositive.} prove that how^shewas prejudiced due to non—production of the

¶103

¶104

property (Ganja)ⁱⁿ the Court. Therefore, mere non—production of the property (Ganja)^inthe Court, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, was not fatal to the case of the prosecution.

¶105

For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge.

¶106

r
34. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.
\V
§d/=
.~. . ‘ w
3mm Sal/-
Kimmf §adiaa >
J13§g§ ‘ R S Sharma

¶107

Sal/-
R S Sharma
Judge

Smt. G.Sarojini v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. G.Sarojini v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.P.Vishwakarma Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Oriental Insu. Co. Ltd. Vs Sheikh Sikndar and Others

Moti Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Narottam Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prijmohan Mittal Vs State Of C.g. and Ors.

Pankaj Pyara Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh